Tag Archives: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Hugh Hewitt and Kristen Waggoner Discuss Upcoming SCOTUS Civil Rights Cases

Hugh Hewitt and Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of U.S. legal division and communications with Alliance Defending Freedom, discuss several court cases that will address whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These cases include Altitude Express Inc. v. ZardaBostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES V EEOC & AIMEE STEPHENS

Waggoner also provides an update on the Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman cases.

Read More »

Hugh Hewitt: President Trump Needs to Go Big on Border Security

President Trump could make a lot of history—good history—in the next two weeks. But he needs to reach back to his inner gambler to do so.

If he tosses aside the counsels of his usual advisers on immigration, Trump can break the deadlock, fix the border-security immigration mess, and in so doing, earn a lasting place in U.S. history among the most consequential presidents.

President Johnson—as a Southerner—relished being the president to deliver the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No fair reading of the history of those critical laws can overlook Johnson’s absolutely essential decision to throw in with a politically perilous position that ran counter to his solid supporters in the segregationist South.

But “going big” today on border security and immigration means going bigger than what Trump offered last Saturday.

Trump needs to solve the interrelated problems of border security, the Dreamers and, yes, all the undocumented.

Go big, Mr. President.

Read More »

Albert Mohler: Turning the Civil Rights Act on Its Head


Last week, the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers transgender persons even though they do not appear in the legislation.

The opinion was written by Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore who writes—and I quote: “the funeral home fired the employee because she refused to abide by her employer’s stereotypical conception of her sex.”

That ruling means that there is now no determinate meaning to sex or gender in the United States of America.

This is a direct threat to religious liberty because the Sixth Circuit said that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has no bearing on this employment question whatsoever.

The moral revolution has but one great barrier to its complete victory: that barrier is religious conviction.

Watch closely.

 

 

Read More »